From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DADE47ED25 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:35:53 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of berenger@riken.jp) identity=pra; client-ip=134.160.33.161; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp"; x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of berenger@riken.jp designates 134.160.33.161 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.160.33.161; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp"; x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of postmaster@postman.riken.jp designates 134.160.33.161 as permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=134.160.33.161; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp"; x-sender="postmaster@postman.riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnoBAPrf7FGGoCGhnGdsb2JhbABagzzAf4EjDgEBAQEBCAsJCRQogiQBAQUyAQU6BhELGAkWCAcJAwIBAgE0ERMGAgEBiAy2dpAdFoNoA4kmjjeGI45L X-IPAS-Result: AnoBAPrf7FGGoCGhnGdsb2JhbABagzzAf4EjDgEBAQEBCAsJCRQogiQBAQUyAQU6BhELGAkWCAcJAwIBAgE0ERMGAgEBiAy2dpAdFoNoA4kmjjeGI45L X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,717,1367964000"; d="scan'208";a="21862888" Received: from postman1.riken.jp (HELO postman.riken.jp) ([134.160.33.161]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2013 09:35:52 +0200 Received: from postman.riken.jp (postman1.riken.jp [127.0.0.1]) by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F06332C00EA for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:35:49 +0900 (JST) Received: from [172.27.98.109] (rikad98.riken.jp [134.160.214.98]) by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CC7D132A008B for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:35:46 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <51ECE0D1.8040800@riken.jp> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:35:45 +0900 From: Francois Berenger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <383739793.214096184.1374254520546.JavaMail.root@zimbra27-e5.priv.proxad.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2013.7.22.71828 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] opam and godi On 07/22/2013 03:55 PM, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: > Hello, > > Looking only at the number of packages available in the repositories, > Opam has around 400 packages while Godi has around 170 packages. Also, > Opam can use "aspcud" to compute the minimal number of changes when > installing/updating, which can make a big difference when dependency > constraints between packages become hard to solve. I also like the > interface "à la apt-get", compared to the curses interface that I used > with Godi. I also like the apt-get/aptitude style of OPAM command lines. As an impatient user, I also feel that OPAM is way faster than GODI. > --Fabrice > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:22 PM, > wrote: > > Hello, > could someone explain please the relation between godi and opam ? Is > it concurrent ? > Godi has been there for some time, and works quite nicely. So what > are differences ? > Thanks, > William > > > -- > Fabrice LE FESSANT > Chercheur en Informatique > INRIA Paris Rocquencourt -- OCamlPro > Programming Languages and Distributed Systems